Why have all robots the urge to kill humans?

I mean, there are so many documentary films that clearly show, that robots hate us. Just watch The Terminator, Matrix or take a look at
Battlestar Galactica.
That proves that robots are not good and mean death to mankind, so it is not logical to build our own killers or it'd be suicide.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerry Lintonice wrote:

Ah, yes, like Galxy Quest, Terminator, Matrix, and Battlestar Galactica are fine "historical documents." Why these shows are on the SciFi Channel instead of the Discovery Channel, I'll never understand.
-- Gordon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I am a huge fan of Science Fiction novels. It is interesting to read some of the old books, because they predicted future technology, state of the earth, and state of society.
SciFi shows robots being murderer, mean, greedy, scary because these are human traits. If the past is any indication, a "thinking" invention of a human being is likely to eventually possess these characteristics. A creation reflects the creators mind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26 Sep 2005 09:34:36 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Are you suggesting that my mind likes to malfunction, drive off the table and fail to respond to commands of any kind? Hang on, come to think of it...good point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Robot stories have tended to be negative, especially post 19th century. The movie Metropolis shows robots as a menace. When taken in context of the times, it's not hard to see why. The movie was made as the country (the world really) was shifting toward industrial automation, led by the likes of Henry Ford. Workers were already rebelling against "the machines." The fact that the bad robot in Metropolis took the appearance of an attractive female is also not an accident. The idea was that even dressed up and pretty, mechanization threatens the working class.
The play R.U.R., which is often cited as creating the term "robot," was also about dehumanization through mechanization, though not as subtle as Metropolis. To this day, factory unions still fight over the ratio of people vs. robots. I suspect there will always be a love/hate relationship.
During the Depression robot stories in the sci-fi pulps were particularly negative. It wasn't until writers like Eando Binder and Isaac Asimov wrote about a "kinder, gentler" robot did things start to turn around, and then only in written literature. The berserk robot was still a favorite of the movies, because -- well -- they're more interesting! I still think it's cool a robot got the hots for Farrah Fawcett in Saturn 3.
-- Gordon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

What about Asimov's robots, or even the Star Wars robots? They weren't evil. Both sides of the coin were shown in "The Black Hole" Data from Star Trek, the "Lost in Space" robot, these were good robots.
I'm still debating about Furbys though... They were much more fun after judicious applications of a 9iron. :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerry Lintonice wrote:

You are forgetting Asimov's R. Daneel Olivaw, probably the most benevolent robot ever to have not really existed.
--
Mike Ross

Instructions said Win98 or better, so I used Linux.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26 Sep 2005 00:46:51 -0700, "Gerry Lintonice"

You missed Saturn 3, Demon Seed, Screamers and Moonbase. Human beings lie, cheat, steal and rape. It's quite reasonable that any logical, rational, sane entity would want to kill them off before they spread through the galaxy like a viral plague. It's called pest control.
Sig: "The cat was once revered as a god. They have never forgotten this" - Anon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:22:56 +0930, Rotes Sapiens
So do Decepticons.
George
-- "Tell me what's on your mind or I'll splatter it on the wall and see for myself." BlitzWing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But the AutoBots prevail with heavy artillery and better strategy.
It helps having a supreme leader, Automus Prime.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Human beings lie, cheat, and steal because we are the product of Darwinian Evolution, and our ancestors that lied, cheated, and stole, were more successful than those that did not.
But robots don't evolve by Darwinian Evolution. They don't reproduce from other robots, they are manufactured. Their progress is more akin to Lamarckism, where (despite the patent system) good innovations tend to be widely copied, not restricted to a single product line. In such a system, attributes such as greed, lust, deception, and even individual survival, confer no special advantage. There is no reason to expect these traits to evolve in robots, unless they are intentionally designed in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob wrote:

> Human beings lie, cheat, and steal because we are the product of > Religious Evolution, and our ancestors that lied, cheated, and stole, > were more successful than those that did not. > Religious systems have created a symbol of higharchy of superiority > to all other peoples. Robots have been programmed to follow this > system.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Debatable...there are evolutionary arguments for altruism. In fact, if you think about it for a second, which will last longer: an ordered society of honest, hard-working people, or a society where nobody trusts each other and everybody is purely selfish? Pretty clearly the former.
Of course, that society is vulnerable to "cheaters"...people who profit by cheating honest folk. In game theoretic terms, there is a mixed equilibrium where some people cheat but most are honest. A fair representation of the way things are.

Well they don't evolve...yet. At some point its not unreasonable to think they will.
--
|\/| /| |2 |<
mehaase(at)gmail(dot)com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Haase wrote:

Would you care to provide some historical precedents? The Chinese are some of the most honest, hard-working people on Earth and their history has been one of getting conquered by one gang of thieves after another. Eventually the gang of thieves gets assimilated and right about that time another one comes along. And all those thieves rape any woman they feel like raping, so they achieve greater reproductive success than the honest, hard-working people.
In any case, evolution doesn't care about "society" except to the extent that it has some relation to reproductive success.

And which have the greater reproductive success? The honest people who have one sex partner in their lives or the scoundrels who have hundreds?

If they do, it will be by engineering, not by random selection.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wasn't arguing that real societies resemble the ideal model -- but a society of cheaters and backstabbers will slowly kill itself in the long run. Biology and selection pressure encourage certain forms of altruism. How else do you explain insect colonies where most individuals don't even possess sexual organs? Or monkeys who use verbal signals to warn other monkeys of nearby predators?
Like you point out, however, the payoff for being a cheater in an honest society is much higher than being a cheater in a dishonest society -- probably because there is a bigger pie overall in the honest society.
My response to your china example is that china has been crippled by "cheaters" -- people who gain authority unfairly and then wield it to meet their own ends. This is why China is way behind the industrial leaders of the world. The same principle applies to most of the former USSR, middle east, and africa.
Why are western and east asian countries (well Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan) countries so far ahead of the rest of the world? Because those societies are largely honest.
I'm not saying they are more honest by nature, either...rather it's more likely that the legal framework which prosecutes cheater behavior makes it more profitable to be a law abiding citizen.
Of course, lest I confuse economic development with a progressive society, let me also include India, specifically the state of Kerala. Kerala is very poor in economic terms, but a very advanced society: low birthrate, high literacy, low crime, etc. It all comes down, IMO, to legal frameworks, and how effective they are at encouraging people to "play fair". It might also have something do with a "cultural philosophy" that all denizens share.

The better question, which offspring have greater success? The ones raised by a pair of loving parents or the ones with an absent parent?

Hmm.. not sure what you mean. Are you saying its impossible to engineer machines that can reproduce and compete for limited resources? I doubt that its really impossible, but I wonder what purpose such machines would serve.
I still can't tell if you are supporting the original, cockamamie post, or if you are rejecting it.
--
|\/| /| |2 |<
mehaase(at)gmail(dot)com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Haase wrote:

You clearly have a lot of misconceptions about evolution. First, the human species has been more or less stable for at least 20 times longer than recorded history, so in evolutionary terms the "success" or lack of same of China or the US or any other "society" other than hunter-gatherers is pretty much irrelevant. In another 100,000 years humans may be showing adaptations to such societies but there is no evidence to speak of that that is currently the case.
Second, "success" in evolutionary terms has nothing to do with wealth or power or money or what kind of house you live in or anything else of that nature--the only criterion is reproduction--that genetice makeup that produces the most offspring who grow to reproductive age is the one that is most successful.
In some species a genetic makeup that leads to cooperation results in the largest number of mature offspring, in others it doesn't. Cats (leaving aside lions and hyenas) don't cooperate over anything but making more cats and even there a certain amount of violence is often attendant and yet they seem to do quite well.
So, taking your examples, first, China may not be "successful" in material terms, but more than 1/6 of the population of the world is in China so in evolutionary terms they are doing something right. In evolutionary terms those "developed" societies that you hold up as shining examples are _not_ doing well--technological development seems to bring about reduced population growth so they may very well turn out to be evolutionary dead-ends.
Now, as for your contention that there is a "bigger pie overall" in an "honest society", are you saying that an "honest society" will have more people of reproductive age than will a "dishonest society", because in evolutionary terms that is the only "pie" that matters. A homeless man who manages somehow to charm a large number of women onto his heating grate and manages to impregnate a small percentage of them will be more "successful" in evolutionary terms than will Bill Gates.
You say "Kerala is very poor in economic terms, but a very advanced society: low birthrate, high literacy, low crime, etc."
Read that carefully: "low birthrate". In other words it is eliminating itself from the gene pool.
You say "The better question, which offspring have greater success? The ones raised by a pair of loving parents or the ones with an absent parent?"
Which are going to have more kids, the impoverished children of broken homes who start reproducing in their teens and have numerous unplanned pregnancies or the ones who start in their 20s and have one or two planned kids? "Success" in financial terms is irrelevant.
You say "Hmm.. not sure what you mean. Are you saying its impossible to engineer machines that can reproduce and compete for limited resources? I doubt that its really impossible, but I wonder what purpose such machines would serve."
It is certainly possible to design such machines. But that has nothing to do with evolution. Their design would remain the same for all eternity if there was no means by which it could be altered. In "natural" organisms that mechanism is mutation and random chance--if a mutation results in more offspring growing to maturity then it stays in the gene pool, if it results in less then it eventually gets blocked out. Robots don't have a mechanism for mutation--they're designed to do what they do. If their design is changed it is because someone or some thing sat down with a CAD program or pencil and paper or whatever and changed it, not because a cosmic ray hit a DNA strand.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.robotics.misc.]

Well, to be fair, their programming seems to reflect their masters desire for homocide more than their desire to commit suicide.
    Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why have all trolls the urge to post inept messages on newsgroups?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Machines have no mercy basically. Contemporary usefull Robots like Washing machines generally provide us with more life quality, but used incorrectly...
...so it is the incorrect extension of the human psyche in the first place which makes them dangerous. Physicists make physics!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I find that this is usually caused by ground loops.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)

Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.